Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

How about a graph showing how this has changed over the last few decades. In isolation, this number doesn't tell us much. What percentage of the jobs held today of a student of the 1960s existed? Is it much higher? If so, how much? Is the rate of change accelerating? How do we know?

The even harder problem is one of "credentials". When we teach people to teach themselves, how do we begin keep track of what hey have taught themselves or its value? Their current and past jobs are not necessarily a measure at all. We need to judge the potential of this self-learning somehow.

I have to ask does someone anyone out there believe that there is any chance whatsoever the US is going to expand access to education? Because if you do I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn great view. The US has spent the last 40 years making education harder to access and more expensive. Outsourcing it to the lowest bidder is merely making it worse. Does anyone honestly believe the government will do a damn thing?

I've been reading this sort of article for the last 30 years ... same sound and fury each time, particularly the more recent chant of skills listed as "Peer-to-peer deliberation, brainstorming, and collaboration" which are in fact not skills but processes. More importantly, for the individual, no team ever gets promoted, no team ever gets a raise... individuals do. Additionally, it would be so refreshing for articles to include actual attribution (you know, the soft skill of footnotes to cited sources), so that a reader might refer to the original article or research beyond questionable mention by author.

Citing employment rates and population numbers create false causal relationships as they are merely tossed out and pretend importance. Logic facilities0 are born in such toss offs, and here again we have proof of such as the author of the article then attempts to ride that straw horse to its meandering preordained conclusion.

Essentially, the author links a state of "Lacking job market skills" for what are euphemistically referred to as "jobs that don't exist yet" is a remarkable confabulation of heroic proportions (at its kindest and an amazing fantasy of logic at the more extreme). Then of course, there are the awkward "technology, globalization and many other factors .... to redefine work" magically mixed into the definitive soup of soft skills for yet to be determined work". Please note it is work, not occupations.

Then, as previous poster dan baur notes, the magic really gets going by once again, some article declares "right strategy" will fix everything.... whatever the heck that means. Which essentially means that GE and the author do in fact believe and have wasted our time presenting their case that "Understanding the future of work is difficult, if not impossible"... and their proofs of same.